RACIAL STEREOTYPING?And other Gallery exclusions

[Guest]

 

That is a massive stretch of the imagination! Come on ......how on earth is a white girl in a mask racial stereotyping????? Cos its a black ski mask?

what next? Banning black fur coats if an "evil" chick is wearing it?

 

There are a lot of lame excuses why some pics end up in the bin after people have gone to the trouble of sourcing them; but thats the biscuit.

 

I never heard such nonsense! Its not the black and white minstrel show is it??????

 

She is NOT inferring anything racial....its a standard fetish thing.

 

Now while we are on the point why are lots of Mr C's pics in the bin?

 

Can ALL mods please give a reason as to why they are putting a pic in the bin so we can have a laugh please?

Edited June 3, 2007 by Guest

[Guest]

Much to do over not very much.

 

First there is the CoC. Read it VERY CAREFULLY. That is my guide line.

 

Many of Mr.C's pictures are there for the same .bmp reason some of yours are. We do NOT accept .bmp files REGARDLESS of content or how wonderful they are. Only .jpg and .gif files are accepted. ZIP files for uploading using the URI/URL upload section. That is IT. This is quite aside from duplicates and redundant pictures which you are increasingly guilty of.

 

There is the growing issue with your Movie uploads of posting every frame of the movie Not acceptable. some are more acceptable than others however [Jane Russell] but don't be shocked if half end up int he Bin. Movie Fame captures aren't very high quality anyway and they are more for INFORMATIONAL value than an aestheic work of Fur Art.

 

It would be good if those of you that upload a lot of pictures would take the time to actually go through ALL the Gallery pictures if for no other reason as to not post repeats. With nearly 12,000 pictures now I have to rely on memory for duplication and though I have exceptional VISUAL recall I'm not without flaw and I appologise if I do make the occasional mistake. We do not have a computer file system that has that kind of visual or graphic cross checking. This is not the NSA computer room. I only wish

 

I'm currently reshuffling the pictures as I've already announced, into more appropriate files and I've found even more duplicates and CoC violations of days earlier. Some of those are now in the Bin.

 

Just because someone takes a picture of IT, HE or HER with a scrap of fur and calls it Fur Picture or Fur Fashion doesn't mean we will accept it.

 

This brings me to the issue of Taste.

 

From the very beginning of The Fur Den's reincarnation we made the decision to make it the very best and TASTEFUL Fur Picture Gallery EVER.

 

Some of your pictures have created more consternation and discussion amongst the Mods than some of the far more important issues we discuss. We're tired of it so it's becoming more an executive decision to delete with extreme predjudice. You are nearly unique in BAD TASTE and Redundant pictures. There is NO discussion as a decree from The Central Communist Commitee on Aesthetic Taste.

 

It's not like they can't be seen at all. They sit for longer periods than I would like to see in places where they can still be viewed unless they are so outright egregious we Delete it. There have been a few of those and not necessarity yours. Fortunately very few.

 

We don't have time to pm everyone on EVERY unaccepted picture. If you do have a question of its viability feel free to pm one of us. It's held in The Goulog before execution for about as long as those convicted in the US and are on Death Row.

 

Remember that we spend MORE time per picture posted than most of you spend getting and loading them. Roninply and Tweety excepted.

 

Relative to the number of pictures posted the percentage of rejects is running at 1.5%. Not nearly what I had expected at the beginning. So don't be such a cry baby.

 

OFF

[ReFur]

You have my support OFF.

 

You guys have no idea the time and effort he spends in the gallery. No idea!

 

Linda

[LordTheNightKnight]

BTW, I think I've uploaded some png files before. Are those acceptable?

[JGalanos]

TOS -- 6 paragraphs

 

OFF -- 14 paragraphs

 

Reminds me of the scene in Shrek 3 where Donkey and Puss had their personalities accidentally transferred to the wrong bodies after being teleported by Merlin.

[Guest]

LofTNK;

 

I know several were not posted. I don't recall if they were yours?

 

It's not that other files won't 'work'. .bmp files in particular are way bigger for a picture than they need be, taking up "space".

 

JG;

 

I hate to repeat myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[LordTheNightKnight]

I just mean that I would like to know if .png files will be allowed, if they are used like gifs.

[Guest]

All my pics come from fashion or the movie world.

 

 

quote

Movie Fame captures aren't very high quality anyway and they are more for INFORMATIONAL value than an aestheic work of Fur Art.

 

Says who?

 

I agree that sometimes screencaps are grainy or small BUT SOMETIMES the "flow" of images are necesary to see the fur in detail. Sometimes it is the actress or character and the imagination or the lead to the movie/person that is of interest.

 

I think its a bit rich that someone whose profession it is to understand visual image is being slated for posting things in bad taste that are the result of directors leaving thousands of feet of redundant image on the cutting room floor; or involve art directors set directors make up and the top cameramen and photographers, and putting up their best stuff.

 

Then there are contextual images.

 

Basically hundreds of images of ebay leave me cold. The women (with some notable exceptions) have NO understanding of what fur does and they stand like lemons modelling half the time. The pics may be high quality because the furs are for sale....but they are NOT tasteful or artistic and are not designed to be.

 

Let us take for example the awful quality freeze frames form Midnight cowboy. They are fantastic BECAUSE you have to look to see what they are! That IS ART....it is also very very sexy to some....enough for them to be posted in other sex AND ART and Cinema oriented galleries. I don't see ebay images appearing anyway else because apart from the fur they are NOT often objectively atratcive. Models are amateur, and they aren't designed to be provacative.

 

 

 

I realise that OFF spends a lot of time working in the gallery and that is appreciated but I am not having his taste being used as a judgement over mine....or anyone elses. Too much of this going on here.

 

Fair enough on the bitmap thing.

 

Then a lot of images are to show certain actresses and models wearing fur....this demonstrates the depth of iconic importance of the fur. Persoanlly, I like to see that for example despite the poor quality, the number and prolificity of furs worn by Brigitte Helm; I always had a thing for her as the robot in Metropolis so contextally it is interesting for many of us too.

 

Then there is the question of personal taste.

OFF...you once rejected a famous image from Eye of the Beholder with Ahsley Judd.

 

Now I will endeavour to explian why that was a bad call.

 

Eye of the Beholder is a superb movie for fur. Ahsley Judd wears several furs including an awesome mink; rare in a modern movie. If you haven't seen the movie..do so its brilliant. A statement is being made. Likewise, a statement is being made about the character smoking; while that is not relevant in itslf it is only half the issue in isolation. I have been unable to get pics of the mink coat. The pics however of Ahsley in the soft sweater (remeber some her like that too) with a gorgeous pearl white mink trim, smoking a cigarette were RELEASED as promotional material. The image is even available as an AVATAR on avatar sites, as it is clearly deemed as a very sultry sexy shot of Miss Judd. I have seen it cropping up on myspace and other forums as an avatar repeatedly. This clearly makes it objectively a very interesting image. It has fur in it; and I regard it as very very sexy. OFF however said it "looks weird", as he doesn't understand the smoking thing so wanted to chuck it.

 

Now; then there is the fact that OFF makes no secret of favouring functional and eighties furs. That is fine; not an issue. HOWEVER when I joined her I didn't see a big sign saying

"A site for those who appreciate eighties and functional furs"

 

My personal favourite are FORTIES furs. Anne Sheridan rocks my boat in fur and Linda Evans doesn't. Audrey Hepburn just has a mink hat in one recent photo but it is stunningly beautiful and entirely relevant. Some people have an interest purely in hats, or muffs, or collars and cuffs. Some purely in the design elements, and some purely in the Women or nice photography of women on fur for example.

 

The recent vidcaps of Carolyn Jones in mink and other furs may not be great; but to see the fur fully you have to see them all. The Character she plays is awesomely sexy, and Carolyn is an icon as she is Morticia from the Addams family which makes it exciting to many. Then I included ONE shot wear she isn't in the mink but has Robin at her knees! A wonderful contextual shot if you use your imagaination. Now I printed these shots out and took them to a party the other night. EVERYONE there thought they were brilliant! Many remeberd her and we had a fab discussion about twenty of us about dominatrix evil women, furs, smoking, and other vampy vilainesses from the past. That modern villianesses don't cut it because of political correctness, and how Batamn in particular was actually an adult fetish fest that would never be got away with now. To show how much fur featured in the series albeit with some poor quality vidcaps is important .

 

Now...back to the image in question. That is in NO WAY racial stereotyping and on the contrary is a fascinating, disturbing, powerful and sxy image and it has fur in and NOBODY in their right mind would look at that and say it is racial.

[Guest]

LofTNK;

 

I think so but pm Worker or AK for the definitive answer.

 

.jpg's are so easy to work with, so common and they take up minimum space for the information contained. Not my area of expertise however.

 

It's just that .bmp files specifically are a no no because of their lack of economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[AKcoyote]

LofTNK,

.png image files are acceptable at this time. PNG (Portable Network Graphic) is a newer standard than JPG or GIF, and thus is not as commonly used and may not be fully supported by all image manipulation utilities.

 

 

All,

As OFF stated, our goal is the BEST fur image gallery available, NOT the biggest. I wish the Den could afford to own a private server with 2- T1 lines for the internet link, but unfortunately that will remain a dream as it would be prohibitively expensive. We are currently using over half of the available disk space on the server, and at our current rate of growth we will completely fill the space by January 2009 when our hosting contract is up for renewal. We can purchase more space, but that means we will need more sponsors, and/or more generous ones.

[Guest]

Okay.

Let us take my latest pic post in the gallery.

Janis Paige in Please Don't Eat the Daisies.

 

This is an exceptional sequence on several counts.

 

Firstly, the images that look similar. Actually, they show the gorgeous couture mink collar on the suit to good effect. The sequence leads to a slap which was designed to be titiallting as it was the bitch character; many of us here like the dominatrix so its the sequence in fur that is interesting; and a contrast to the Doris Day character.

 

Secondly, why have I included the velvet tight skirt shot when there is no fur?

 

Well you have to know something about the movie to appreciate the relevance.

 

This was the days before anything sexual could be shown. Janis Paige's character in this movie is the ultimate fur bitch . It was influential in making th Movie The Bitch, and why there is so much fur and gloves in it.

 

Janis plays a dominatrix type who is out for herself. Madison would empathise with her "dark side".

 

The director workd closely with wardrobe as he wanted EVERY item of luxury and senusaily and fetish in Janis's wardrobe. This movie INVENTED the power bitch and it is the first close up of a ladies butt in a mainstream movie; the tight skirt fetish was very powerful at the time...remember you never saw naked butt. The director specifically wanted power and sensuality in her clothing...."fur feather fetish" were specifically ordered; and the velvet skirt had to look like she had been "poured into it". So the velvet is as relevant as the fur especially as its the most famous clip of the film. I could've posed the amazing whole red velvet suit but I didn't; I haven't been greedy. I know many of us hee like velvet, like power, and its a contextual relevance too as a significant event in cinema history with regard to wardrobe and character; she has defined the fur bitch. A Jayne Manfield blonde was what they wanted to avoid: she had to have power through class and style.

 

Just as Brigitte Helm is NOT intersting in fur UNTIL you know she is the robot in Metropois; or UNTIL you know that Yvonne Craig is also Batgirl, seeing her in a bit of fur is not interesting.

 

Do I have to explain my rationale for every sequence? I am being selective you know....just the reaosn for it may not be apparent.

 

You can't tell that Elke Sommer is strangling the guy unless you see the whole sequence for example. And for many of us; its the evil bitch character in soft furs and leather gloves that is interesting. Individually as shots they may not be great as they are vidcaps; but I the scene as a whole is awesome . And every frame that made it through to final cut is interesting artistsically.

 

 

 

 

From the WOMWAM site:

 

Always quick to display an Aggressive Femininity, her physical projections mirror the eras she thrived in... During the late 40s / early 50s, while she did pinups and played sexy girls, there was a tempered innocence to her look... But as the times and media became more eroticized, she blossomed in step, embracing her Womanly Largesse to become a mature Provocative Glamazon... Exuding a commanding sexual confidence at the same time having fun with it, she's one of the the most sexually imposing Femmes of the survey, described in some reviews with the quaint term as "over-sexed..." Along with Mitzi Gaynor and Sue Ane Langdon, one of the all-time Hollywood Butt-Doyennes...

 

So a fur bitch famous for her butt. Context. Otherwise we underestimate the cultural and sexual importance of Janis in furs; and why fur aswell as other feminine sensual fabrics and status symbols WERE considered mainstreal sexy at one time not just in the realm of fetish.

 

 

Then there is another 3 pic sequence I have just uploaded. It is Jean Hale in the St Valentines day Massacre"

 

The one shot is very nice I am sur everyone will agree. So WHY have I posted the other two...showing less of the fur? BECAUSE the gyt tries to take the mink away from her. BAD move. She gives him waht for. That is intersting as a cultural reflection of how important furs were to women at the time. Then it is also interesting to those who like a bit of violence with ther sex...pay kind of course.

 

I remember one great session with my girlfriend for example. I got Gucci fur for a small price. It was awesome; black mink with huge black fox collar and cuffs; waisted with a leather belt. Sophie Dall has a similar one in white in the gallery. It was all lined with the Gucci lining and buttons; stunning.

So my girl wore it for a few months, but I told her I would have to sell it when someone knew its true value. So I got offered $8000 . That led to a similar bedroom incident with a lot of fighting and "no S'MINE! Get off! bish band wallop" going on and finally a good romp. I still sold it though; but bought her another stunning coat from the profits and still had lots left over. Anyway; that scene reminds me of that. Its sexy, and about power and desire....not a stiff amateur model in an ebay coat. I don't care how nice the coat is if it not about female sexuality it doesn't interest me. ....you don't get me taking away the rights of those who do appreciate that kind of stuff to enjoy it though do you?

Edited June 3, 2007 by Guest

[Guest]

More adequate text with the pictures can explain this more effectively than, wht to most, would seem disassociated and random shots. This is STILL a FUR SITE not a Film Critics Site.

 

As I said about the Movie Gallery .. it is to encourage and EXPLAIN to others why they should get the film and WATCH IT!!! Not to provide an inadequate rerun of blurred images. It was assumed from the first the Movie Picture grabs would be of poor quality in most cases. Not always however. The ones I have for one of my Avatars [Mia Farrow from Alice] is exceptional. I took it off my computer from the DVD. I'll be posting a few of those soon if only for demonstration and I'm no computer Geek.

 

I'm not arguing the aesthetic merits of any film or the images as such but the grasp of what we can show here. The Jane Russell ones recently were much better than the others. I don't know why? Words in this case may be worth a thousand frame grabs. Words are actually encouraged with any picture in any Album.

 

Also the Movie Pictures shown in the Gallery Album should be listed in the wiki Movies List as well. This is ment to be a cross reference system eventually. Site in development as they say.

 

re Ashley Judd. You can always resubmit a picture. Especially if it is upgraded or 'improved'.

 

Just because it's a multi million dollar film and Ashley Judd doesn't mean Jack however, despite my being a fan of hers. We do have a Smoking Album now so feel free ...

 

 

OFF

Edited June 3, 2007 by Guest

[Guest]

23:00 BBC1 tonight Tos, the original concept & attitude still holds good even today, don't miss it.

[Guest]

"there's no point in asking you'll get no reply....

 

......oh we're so pretty oh so pretty....."

 

 

 

Yep look forward to that.

Of course the main thing to come out of that whole movement was this basic guide in life:

 

"Never Trust a Hippy"

or later expressed by jello Biafra:

"zen fascists will control you...."

 

Anyway...back to OFF's comments. Yes I KNOW its not a movie site but if you are telling me that ANY picture of Mia Farrow in fur or not is sexy then you need to seek psychiatric help. However I am not opressing your right to find it sexy

[Guest]

"Rools are for fools" spat a snarling J.lydon I thought was maybe more apt...

[Guest]

Mia sexy? No. It's an issue of teh film capture quality regardless of content. That is the point which you don't seem to grasp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[wallee]

 

This and the 2 brenda vacarro from midnight cowboy.

 

Where is there and fur in these pics?

 

 

I can't beleive I waisted post 1000 on a pointless debate with ToS.

[Guest]

She was FAMOUS for her ass and the director specifically wanted sensuality and fetsih and power...hence the fur....against the "natural" Daoris Day charcyer. I am making that point . No velvet clad ass no fur get it?

 

The fur is ther wallee you just can't see it. It xists in the movie because you are meant to "feel " it. Voight makes love with his head down and that was unique in film making. The fur is again part of that message and its there....look.

[wallee]

No velvet clad ass no fur get it?

 

The fur is ther wallee you just can't see it.

 

This is a fur appreciation site.

 

No fur. No post it. End of arguement.

[Guest]

There IS fur in the Midnight Cowboy pics....LOOK.

Its red fox. The first fur shag in a mainstream film in all its sordid close up glory and you don't want it because its soft focus?

 

And I stand by the ass because at least by posting it some people now know waht she was famous for; though I know you will delete it. Without that its pointless. Context wallee; look at the bigger picture.

The best ass the world has ever seen was big into furs. End of discussion.

[wallee]

This is a FUR image gallery. No images of faux or with minimal fur please.

From the posting guidelines of the gallery.

 

Most people wouldn't have a hope in hell of identifying that ass, much less associating it with a fur lover. We are looking for quality pictures containing real fur. Not faux fur or implied fur.

 

And IF the midnight cowboy pics contain fur, and if it's that hard to see, they are not worthy of posting in our callery.

[Guest]

Some people can't see for looking can they?

 

ten years ago an image was shortlisted for the Turner prize in Art. It had a very out of focus picture of an Aircraft; only half in picture.

 

Some people could not se what it meant. It wasn't an intellectual statement howvere. Some very ordinary people l9ooked at it and said that it was unusual because it suggested movement and you could almost hear the plane though it was just a photographic glimps. It SAID something . It aso heralded; like the Andy Warhol thing...a nw aya of seeing: the candid ; and siad it could be ART.

 

Likewise, the Midnight Cowboy images depict a sex act in subtle soft focus in furs. When I look at it; its very much what I see when I am close up in the dark to my girlfriends breast and the fur collar. These pics make me FEEL ; and that is a different way of seeing. People know the scene and I think those who have imagination will empathise with what I am saying.

 

A glimpse of stocking sometimes says a lot lot more than obvious detail.

 

 

As for th ass pic. As I said its a contextual thing SOMETIMES we need to cotextualise.

 

For example; on a racing forum When pics of the Melbourne Cup wre posted, pics of melbourne and its people were also allowed aswell as the race.

 

The fur pics are meaningless unless you undertsand WHO Janis Paige is and why she is famous. Same as cvatwoman, morticia, the brigitte helm robot. I ma NOT talking about filling the gallery with such stuff just the ODD pic to stimulate discussion. Some of us get off NOT on the pic of Julie Newmar in fur but KNOWING that the character she played..Catwoman....actually wore fur in an episode. Far more exciting than any ebay chick to me at least. Now I also have dozens and dozens of pics of julie newmar smoking but I DON'T post them because they have no fur....so I ONLY request the odd contextual shot, Same with the thought of Morticia Addams in fur....its a fantasy and a good subject for talk. And just IMAGINE that robot in fur from Metroplois....with the pics of Brigitte Helm and he ONE pic of the robot its possible! With Janis Paige I would think people would want to know why her ass was considered so perfect ; and that makes the pics of her in fur so much more meaningful!

[ReFur]

ToS,

 

I am not speaking for the admins of other mods. I am speaking as someone who had been on your side for a very long time. (Did you catch the past tense there?)

 

Understand something. We have a team that runs the den. OFF and Wallee are not your problem.

 

The problem is you are not in charge. And, you do not decide the rules here. You have to accept this if you want to stay here.

 

I had been a long time supporter of yours, ToS. My posts prove it. On the mods forum I also have been as well. No longer! Personally am feed up with your rants and mental drain on the mod staff, and have been for several months.

 

To me you are addicted to drama and fighting. That is just not what we are about. This also has nothing to do with Nationality, which is a card you love to play when you are fighting your "wars,"

 

It is simply about your place in life. And, for you that is where you obviously need to be. That is not something the Den has to share.

 

Of all of your posts there is always some war or enemy to fight.

 

...Maybe you need to find a different site that is based on love of fighting instead of love of fur?

 

...Or, maybe you should take your energies and start your own site. And, I am not being mean when I say this. Maybe you should. The Fur Den is not trying to be everything in the Internet fur world.

 

...Or, why don't you go to another site for this need to fight and come here for fur? We would both be better off.

 

But, understand something. You are not hijacking The Fur Den.

 

Do we care about our membership. Absolutely. More than you can know.

 

And, that is why I am posting this post on the boards. You are one member, that is important to me. But, your behavior drives away a lot of people I care about, too.

 

Enough is enough ToS!

 

Linda

[wallee]

Some people can't see for looking can they?

 

 

And others can't see because it's not there.

 

Kind of like the emporers suit.

 

We are a fur site. It's a fur gallery.

 

No fur = no post.

[LordTheNightKnight]

ReFur, you scare me sometimes.